Nunn Urges Clinton, Senate To Stay Cool

WASHINGTON — The powerful and respected chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee warned the Clinton administration Wednesday not to take any action on lifting the ban on gays in the military until his committee completes hearings on the matter.

In a major floor speech, Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) listed a series of unanswered questions about the effects of lifting the ban, such as whether gays could engage in homosexual acts only off their post.

He said pointedly, "I know that there is a real effort under way to have the president sign an executive order. . . . I would also urge that the White House, the president, and all of his advisers, including my good friend, the secretary of defense (Les Aspin), think though these questions very carefully before they take any kind of action that can be final, or could be perceived as final."

At the same time, Nunn issued a similar warning to his Senate colleagues, enjoining them not to introduce any legislation that would pre-empt the president.

"I would urge that those who want to legislate on this subject, one way or the other, think through some of these questions before they propose a specific piece of legislation," he said.

An example of the kind of action that Nunn was striving to forestall was a potential Republican amendment that would codify the Pentagon's administrative ban on gays into the law of the land.

Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas said he would offer such an amendment to the first bill the Democrats brought to the floor.

That could be the family leave bill, which Clinton supports.

Nunn apparently will get a form of the delay he seeks.

Defense Secretary Les Aspin said Wednesday night that when Clinton directs this week that the ban be lifted, he will delay a formal executive order for six months to allow for hearings and to settle other questions.

At a White House meeting with the president Monday, America's top military officers were unable to persuade him to go back on his campaign pledge to open the military to avowed gays and lesbians.

Clinton's declared intent to act quickly sparked immediate resistance in Congress, where the issue has taken on aspects of a turf battle between the executive and legislative branches.

Indeed, Nunn specifically cited Congress' authority under the Constitution to "make rules for the government and regulation" of the armed forces.

"The question of whether homosexuals should serve in the military is an issue on which Congress and the president share constitutional responsiblity," Nunn said. "It is in everyone's interest to see if we can resolve this issue through consensus rather than confrontation."

Nunn cited many unresolved issues regarding lifting the ban, including whether homosexual couples should receive the same benefits as legally married couples. "For example," he said, "non-military spouses now are entitled to housing, medical care . . . and commissary privileges.

"If homosexual couples are given such benefits, will they also have to be granted to unmarried heterosexual couples?" Nunn asked.

Such questions all bear on the cohesion and effectiveness of the military, Nunn said.

When it comes to national security, he declared, "We must move very cautiously. This caution is prudence, not prejudice."

Sen. William Cohen (R-Maine) said, "It appears as if the decision has been made, and we'll hold the hearings later-something out of `Alice in Wonderland' perhaps. Verdict first, trial later. My own view is that we should have the hearings first."

In a telephone interview, Rep. Donald Manzullo (R-Ill.) complained that Clinton does not have the authority to change the policy unilaterally. "There is a jurisdictional line that is being drawn in the sand. . . . One of the first things the president did was try to usurp the authority of Congress," he said.